(07-16-2022, 06:17 PM)F Gump Wrote: 1 "saying that people are advocating for trading for Westbrook the player" ....This is way off base about what I have been saying. I just clarified that for you, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Didn't you even read it? I understand that this is all about a money move - I never said it wasn't -- but it also has on-court ramifications, right? You get RW the player, and whatever that entails. Right?
2 You quote my words but try to twist my meaning. You know what I'm saying by now. My point is that the pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (which is the end goal for a RW trade) "would come at the cost of gutting the team..." -- which is what I have been pointing out from the start. I understand RW alone does not gut the team and have said so, and clarified so. I also understand that a trade for RW makes sense in the context of such a free agency pursuit (which would take gutting the team) but then doesn't make sense if you don't really truly intend to go that route.
3 "Getting off of THJ and Bertans early could take your committed salary down to the $70m range depending on the options you pickup or decline.".... The lowest possible is probably closer to 87M including cost for empty salary slots. But here's your stripping the team -- to even do that you are getting rid of ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green.
What's more important, all those decisions happen before free agency begins (including bypassing opportunities to extend your guys before they become free agents) and you will have no signing rights on any of those players if you get to 87M. If you want to keep your rights on Maxi and Wood, you are without spendable cap room (you're about MLE below it, so might as well not have it). That would indeed be stripping the roster down, with no way to know what free agency will offer.
I'd rather have ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green. In which case, why did I get rid of THJ and Bertans, who might help me or might be trade assets?
1. I've clarified the on the court ramifications of a RW trade multiple times. Didn't you even read it? You know opinions can differ on the severity of those ramifications and the outcomes, right? You realize can trade for RW and not deal with the player, right?
Kidd: Russell, are you willing to come of the bench?
RW: No.
Kidd: We are going to excuse you from the team.
Or
RW: Yes
Kidd: We will try to make this work and rehab your playing reputation but if it doesn't work or you cause trouble, we are going to excuse you from the team.
See: John Wall.
Then you factor in THJ impact on the court. I think he's a neutral but I welcome different views. And certainly ever year he is retained, he becomes easier and more valuable to trade based on the structure of his contract.
2. If I'm twisting then pot meet kettle.
3. I'd need to double check the napkin math but I do think you can get into the 70s by gutting the team but that's highly unlikely given you wouldn't jettison Din/Bullock as their partial guarantees are north of 15m.
It's fine that you'd rather have Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie and Green but that's making a lot of assumptions about Maxi's next contract, Wood's fit on the team and if Josh Green can continue to develop. I'd question the long term future of all three of those players with Maxi being the safest bet. There is a leap of faith to the free agency route but also a leap of faith for a lot of what is on our roster right now as far as resigning them or being able to trade them in moves that make the team better.
Thanks for the clarification on timings and signing rights. That alters my thinking.